Wearing of anything with religious symbols in public

[Pope Joan]

If people cannot stand seeing the sight of individuals wearing religious symbols or garments, then I can hardly see how that is a problem of the wearer rather than the viewer's intolerance.

France, birthplace of the Enlightenment, is revealing itself as racist and intolerant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... erant.html

[Calladan]

If people cannot stand seeing the sight of individuals wearing religious symbols or garments, then I can hardly see how that is a problem of the wearer rather than the viewer's intolerance.

France, birthplace of the Enlightenment, is revealing itself as racist and intolerant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... erant.html

Wasn't France the place that chopped a whole lot of people's heads off because they had too much money? Not convinced that that makes them "the birthplace of enlightenment"

Then again, I am pretty sure no country has ever really had a history of complete tolerance and enlightenment. Britain burned witches. America kept slaves and burned witches. France cut people's heads off (and possibly burned witches?). Germany did some truly horrendous things. Even the Romans and Greeks and so on - not so nice when you get down to it.

The truth is people have done crappy things to each other in the name of their religion throughout history. At least now it is just banning certain clothes and crosses, rather than virgin sacrifices and witch burning. So I guess that is some kind of progress

[Grave_n_idle]

If people cannot stand seeing the sight of individuals wearing religious symbols or garments, then I can hardly see how that is a problem of the wearer rather than the viewer's intolerance.

If I were religious in some small denomination, wearing my icons would probably be enough to get me fired (or just not hires) in the US.

If I were Christian, on the other hand - wearing my icons probably wouldn't get me discriminated against. Indeed, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people say something like "He's a good man. Family man. A good Christian" as a reason to hire someone, or to support them for some endeavour.

And that's the problem, right there. All religions are NOT treated equally. Regardless of what the Constitution says.

[Xelsis]

If people cannot stand seeing the sight of individuals wearing religious symbols or garments, then I can hardly see how that is a problem of the wearer rather than the viewer's intolerance.

If I were religious in some small denomination, wearing my icons would probably be enough to get me fired (or just not hires) in the US.

If I were Christian, on the other hand - wearing my icons probably wouldn't get me discriminated against. Indeed, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people say something like "He's a good man. Family man. A good Christian" as a reason to hire someone, or to support them for some endeavour.

And that's the problem, right there. All religions are NOT treated equally. Regardless of what the Constitution says.

So? The Constitution says nothing about "all religions must be treated equally", and even if it did, it is a check on government, not people. You have freedom of expression, but if you show up to a job interview in a purple mowhawk and a Led Zeppelin shirt, you are going to be discriminated against in favor of the person showing up in a suit-that's simply how it works.

[Alvecia]

Banning religious symbols seems reasonable for much the same reasons places have dress codes I suppose.

[Minoa]

Although I am very critical of religious influence in the state, the idea of banning religious symbols in public is superfluous.

[Grave_n_idle]

So? The Constitution says nothing about "all religions must be treated equally",

It does guarantee equal protection under the law.

and even if it did, it is a check on government, not people.

The establishment and exercise clauses are specific to federal and state governments, yes - but the 14th Amendment and decades of precedent law have established that public accommodations cannot generally OPENLY treat religions unequally, because equal treatment under the law is a guarantee.

Of course, the way this is usually circumvented, is to pretend the discrimination was about something else.

You have freedom of expression, but if you show up to a job interview in a purple mowhawk and a Led Zeppelin shirt, you are going to be discriminated against in favor of the person showing up in a suit-that's simply how it works.

And having a different religion is like that, is it?

You ever notice that the people who argue that discrimination SHOULD be allowed almost always belong to the group that is doing the discrimination, not the group being discriminated against?

[Calladan]

You ever notice that the people who argue that discrimination SHOULD be allowed almost always belong to the group that is doing the discrimination, not the group being discriminated against?

In the same way that a lot of people who argue their free speech is being curtailed are generally people who want to use that speech to abuse other people?

[Deutsch Mitteleuropa]

If people cannot stand seeing the sight of individuals wearing religious symbols or garments, then I can hardly see how that is a problem of the wearer rather than the viewer's intolerance.

France, birthplace of the Enlightenment, is revealing itself as racist and intolerant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... erant.html

If protection of your people and culture is intolerant, then I'll be intolerant, thank you very much.

[Old Tyrannia]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitutions of every Westernized nation in the world.

Unless the UK isn't included under your definition of a "Westernised nation," I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call bullshit here. Freedom of religion is legally guaranteed in the UK, but not by constitutional law.

Cross necklaces and bracelets aren't mandated to be worn by the Christian faith, and individual organisations have a right to impose a dress code on their employers or membership. However, if crosses specifically are forbidden where there is no actual dress code otherwise, that seems to amount to the particular persecution of Christians in my opinion. Additionally, if one bans crosses on the grounds of conforming to a dress code then the same standard should be applied to all worn religious symbols, including the hijab. Exemptions can be allowed for religious items and clothing which are actually mandated by the faith in question, such as the kara for Sikhs.

In general, I don't see the justification for banning crucifixes or the like in a workplace; they're fairly discrete and innocuous and anyone who is offended simply by an expression of faith from another person is oversensitive and should just get over it. The same goes for the hijab or dastaar; with something like the burka, which covers the whole body, banning it seems reasonable since it would naturally interfere with any organisational dress code or uniform.

[Frank Zipper]

Getting upset by what someone else is or isn't wearing seems like weakness to me.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Firstly - I am sorry for my slightly..... overly belligerent tone. I had had a bad day and I may have taken it out on people who didn't entirely deserve it. So - apologies to anyone who felt slighted by my attack on Christians who do not defend Muslims when they are told they can't wear what they want to wear.

But (and here I undo everything I just said) it's all bollocks anyway. If I and all my friends told you we had a solid religion based on the works of JK Rowling, and that we wanted the right to wear Golden Snitch pins because they were the symbol of our religions, and that by denying us that right you were interfering without freedom of religion, you would tell us we were insane.

But the truth is it just means our imaginary friend is just less acceptable than your imaginary friend. And you have more people who believe in your imaginary friend than we have who believe in our imaginary friend. So you get to have government protection for your little doodad while we don't get protection for ours.

It's just a huge pile of crap. Either you apply it to everyone (crosses, yarmulkes, burqas, Golden Snitch pins and so forth) or you ban it for everyone. Because why should your imaginary friend be more important than my imaginary friend? (And I am absolutely guarantee that - worldwide - more people have died in the name of Christianity, Islam and Judaism than have died in the name of The Church of Potter).

Point of order - The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Silly? Perhaps in the minds of many. Legally supported? There's been cases where people have been allowed to wear a colander on their head for 'religious purposes', for example. Just ... tossing that out there.

What you're saying there may very well be true enough, and its all a matter of personal beliefs that may or may not make sense to other people. But if that's all there is to it, why the kerfuffle? (Aside from the obvious 'mine is more legit than yours' crap that inevitably gets spinning, of course.) No different from wearing an organization pin, or group patch, or band shirt, or event logo. None of that's banned, and unless the /type/ of attire is the point of contention - t-shirt in a business dress code office - then there really shouldn't be an issue, neh?

[The Alma Mater]

Firstly - I am sorry for my slightly..... overly belligerent tone. I had had a bad day and I may have taken it out on people who didn't entirely deserve it. So - apologies to anyone who felt slighted by my attack on Christians who do not defend Muslims when they are told they can't wear what they want to wear.

But (and here I undo everything I just said) it's all bollocks anyway. If I and all my friends told you we had a solid religion based on the works of JK Rowling, and that we wanted the right to wear Golden Snitch pins because they were the symbol of our religions, and that by denying us that right you were interfering without freedom of religion, you would tell us we were insane.

But the truth is it just means our imaginary friend is just less acceptable than your imaginary friend. And you have more people who believe in your imaginary friend than we have who believe in our imaginary friend. So you get to have government protection for your little doodad while we don't get protection for ours.

It's just a huge pile of crap. Either you apply it to everyone (crosses, yarmulkes, burqas, Golden Snitch pins and so forth) or you ban it for everyone. Because why should your imaginary friend be more important than my imaginary friend? (And I am absolutely guarantee that - worldwide - more people have died in the name of Christianity, Islam and Judaism than have died in the name of The Church of Potter).

Point of order - The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Silly? Perhaps in the minds of many. Legally supported? There's been cases where people have been allowed to wear a colander on their head for 'religious purposes', for example. Just ... tossing that out there.

And have also been denied to wear said headgear on photos on official documents numerous times, despite headscarves and kippahs being allowed.
And I know of noone who was allowed to wear the MAGA baseballcap or Barca sweatband on said pictures.

[Telconi]

I would say it's within a company's right to control what an employee wears. But it should be a universal rule. If any exemption is made for any religious dress, they should exempt all religious dress.

[Telconi]

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitutions of every Westernized nation in the world.

Unless the UK isn't included under your definition of a "Westernised nation," I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call bullshit here. Freedom of religion is legally guaranteed in the UK, but not by constitutional law.

Cross necklaces and bracelets aren't mandated to be worn by the Christian faith, and individual organisations have a right to impose a dress code on their employers or membership. However, if crosses specifically are forbidden where there is no actual dress code otherwise, that seems to amount to the particular persecution of Christians in my opinion. Additionally, if one bans crosses on the grounds of conforming to a dress code then the same standard should be applied to all worn religious symbols, including the hijab. Exemptions can be allowed for religious items and clothing which are actually mandated by the faith in question, such as the kara for Sikhs.

In general, I don't see the justification for banning crucifixes or the like in a workplace; they're fairly discrete and innocuous and anyone who is offended simply by an expression of faith from another person is oversensitive and should just get over it. The same goes for the hijab or dastaar; with something like the burka, which covers the whole body, banning it seems reasonable since it would naturally interfere with any organisational dress code or uniform.

What gives the firm that employs me the right to determine what is or isn't mandatory? If I feel spiritually compelled by my faith to wear a crucifix necklace, who can say that such a desire is less important than a Muslim woman who feels compelled to wear a hijab?

I could see if it interfered with work duties, like perhaps a burqa. But even then I have issues, for example my work prohibits wearing of the dastaar on the grounds that it interferes with safety equipment. Personally, I believe a Sikh man should have the right to wave corporate liability, and thus wear the dastaar, legally accepting the risk his decision puts him in.

[Salus Maior]

The truth is people have done crappy things to each other in the name of their religion throughout history. At least now it is just banning certain clothes and crosses, rather than virgin sacrifices and witch burning. So I guess that is some kind of progress

People did and still do crappy things to each other for about as many reasons they could get by historically.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Anyone care about what I posted and how private business and schools can still have there own dress code?

I care...
For dress code, private businesses and schools can have dress code, sure, but banning people from wearing religious symbols would be a violation of their right to the freedom of religion.

How so?

Business and private schools are not controlled by the government, they are not banning people of certain religions in the school or business, they are just saying "Hey you can't where that in here."

For example, if I had a cross on me and I was in a wood shop, they would ask me to take it off beacuse of safety reasons, not beacuse they don't want me the practice my religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

The truth is people have done crappy things to each other in the name of their religion throughout history. At least now it is just banning certain clothes and crosses, rather than virgin sacrifices and witch burning. So I guess that is some kind of progress

People did and still do crappy things to each other for about as many reasons they could get by historically.

Religion is a favourite, though - because it's hard to argue with it.

Genocide is okay, when your god approves.

[Iascaireland]

I've noticed this problem aswell. I'm a Calvinist who recently bought a beautiful Huguenot Cross and I've worn it in public ever since.

Most actions against religious symbols seem to target mostly christians, muslims and sikhs (we should introduce the death penalty on religious discrimination against Sikhbros <3). Universities tend to target christians while private companies usually target muslims. I kindof find it a bit odd that people are even bothered by it. I could maybe understand it with the female religious dress in Islam because there is still a debate whether women who wear them are generally forced/pressured to wear them or not.

I suppose groups having to oppress other ones is simply something our species will never get rid of, whether it's oppression against non-[insert religion] or against all religions in general.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I've noticed this problem aswell. I'm a Calvinist who recently bought a beautiful Huguenot Cross and I've worn it in public ever since.

Most actions against religious symbols seem to target mostly christians, muslims and sikhs (we should introduce the death penalty on religious discrimination against Sikhbros <3). Universities tend to target christians while private companies usually target muslims. I kindof find it a bit odd that people are even bothered by it. I could maybe understand it with the female religious dress in Islam because there is still a debate whether women who wear them are generally forced/pressured to wear them or not.

I suppose groups having to oppress other ones is simply something our species will never get rid of, whether it's oppression against non-[insert religion] or against all religions in general.

I'm not sure we should kill people for insults

[Calladan]

Firstly - I am sorry for my slightly..... overly belligerent tone. I had had a bad day and I may have taken it out on people who didn't entirely deserve it. So - apologies to anyone who felt slighted by my attack on Christians who do not defend Muslims when they are told they can't wear what they want to wear.

But (and here I undo everything I just said) it's all bollocks anyway. If I and all my friends told you we had a solid religion based on the works of JK Rowling, and that we wanted the right to wear Golden Snitch pins because they were the symbol of our religions, and that by denying us that right you were interfering without freedom of religion, you would tell us we were insane.

But the truth is it just means our imaginary friend is just less acceptable than your imaginary friend. And you have more people who believe in your imaginary friend than we have who believe in our imaginary friend. So you get to have government protection for your little doodad while we don't get protection for ours.

It's just a huge pile of crap. Either you apply it to everyone (crosses, yarmulkes, burqas, Golden Snitch pins and so forth) or you ban it for everyone. Because why should your imaginary friend be more important than my imaginary friend? (And I am absolutely guarantee that - worldwide - more people have died in the name of Christianity, Islam and Judaism than have died in the name of The Church of Potter).

Point of order - The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Silly? Perhaps in the minds of many. Legally supported? There's been cases where people have been allowed to wear a colander on their head for 'religious purposes', for example. Just ... tossing that out there.

What you're saying there may very well be true enough, and its all a matter of personal beliefs that may or may not make sense to other people. But if that's all there is to it, why the kerfuffle? (Aside from the obvious 'mine is more legit than yours' crap that inevitably gets spinning, of course.) No different from wearing an organization pin, or group patch, or band shirt, or event logo. None of that's banned, and unless the /type/ of attire is the point of contention - t-shirt in a business dress code office - then there really shouldn't be an issue, neh?

Except that - with a few obvious exceptions - most social groups and football teams and bands and the like don't have scriptures of belief that says "EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN US WILL BURN IN HELL".

I do not like The Beatles. I don't actively dislike them, but their music does nothing for me. However not once have I ever been told by an overly zealous fan of The Beatles that I am going to burn in hellfire for all of eternity because I don't like the music. Or because I am eating pork. Or because I am gay.

Religions (okay - some Religions) and by extension the symbols of those religions provoke strong feelings because of the scriptures and the tenets of their faith. If it was a requirement of every follower of The Beatles to go around setting fire to every record store that did not have at least 200 Beatles albums in it, then I think people who did not like The Beatles might object to Beatles fans wearing Beatles t-shirts.

Plus - just to go off on a tangent for a second - if you walk through certain parts of Glasgow wearing a Rangers shirt, you will get the shit kicked out of you. And if you walk through other parts wearing a Celtic t-shirt, you will also get the shit kicked out of you. So the "not wearing certain clothes/symbols/etc in certain places" does actually extend to other areas, depending on where you are.

[Old Tyrannia]

Unless the UK isn't included under your definition of a "Westernised nation," I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call bullshit here. Freedom of religion is legally guaranteed in the UK, but not by constitutional law.

Cross necklaces and bracelets aren't mandated to be worn by the Christian faith, and individual organisations have a right to impose a dress code on their employers or membership. However, if crosses specifically are forbidden where there is no actual dress code otherwise, that seems to amount to the particular persecution of Christians in my opinion. Additionally, if one bans crosses on the grounds of conforming to a dress code then the same standard should be applied to all worn religious symbols, including the hijab. Exemptions can be allowed for religious items and clothing which are actually mandated by the faith in question, such as the kara for Sikhs.

In general, I don't see the justification for banning crucifixes or the like in a workplace; they're fairly discrete and innocuous and anyone who is offended simply by an expression of faith from another person is oversensitive and should just get over it. The same goes for the hijab or dastaar; with something like the burka, which covers the whole body, banning it seems reasonable since it would naturally interfere with any organisational dress code or uniform.

What gives the firm that employs me the right to determine what is or isn't mandatory? If I feel spiritually compelled by my faith to wear a crucifix necklace, who can say that such a desire is less important than a Muslim woman who feels compelled to wear a hijab?

Neither should be given any special exemption, because there is no compulsion in Christianity to wear a crucifix every day and no compulsion in Islam to wear the hijab. You don't get to make up religious requirements because it suits you- it needs to be backed by religious authority.

[Dylar]

I care...
For dress code, private businesses and schools can have dress code, sure, but banning people from wearing religious symbols would be a violation of their right to the freedom of religion.

How so?

Business and private schools are not controlled by the government, they are not banning people of certain religions in the school or business, they are just saying "Hey you can't where that in here."

For example, if I had a cross on me and I was in a wood shop, they would ask me to take it off beacuse of safety reasons, not beacuse they don't want me the practice my religion.

Well, I'm not saying that they're banning people of certain faiths, they're just barring them from silently evangelizing their faith through symbols. However, since you brought up safety regs., I feel that the only jobs that have a good reason to bar people from wearing religious items, would have to be the blue-collar manual labour jobs. I can't really think of any white-collar jobs that would require you to take off pieces of jewlery for safety reasons, so they have no excuse. As for private schools...they really have no excuse. Most religious items are small pieces of jewlery that aren't too distracting. Plus it shows a little diversity in a little uniformity.

[Xelsis]

So? The Constitution says nothing about "all religions must be treated equally",

It does guarantee equal protection under the law.

Yet a private business is not the law. It is a private business. It makes its own choices.

and even if it did, it is a check on government, not people.

The establishment and exercise clauses are specific to federal and state governments, yes - but the 14th Amendment and decades of precedent law have established that public accommodations cannot generally OPENLY treat religions unequally, because equal treatment under the law is a guarantee.

Of course, the way this is usually circumvented, is to pretend the discrimination was about something else.

Once again, the law treating you unequally is distinct from an individual treating you unequally. Private discrimination is not public discrimination.

You can go so far as to try to extend that to punish a business for discriminating against someone who doesn't have a degree in the field, for example. Is it discrimination? Yes. But it's something they are well within their rights to do.

Besides, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 already forbids discrimination in employment based off of religion. It shouldn't, but it does-which means you're complaining about nothing.

You have freedom of expression, but if you show up to a job interview in a purple mowhawk and a Led Zeppelin shirt, you are going to be discriminated against in favor of the person showing up in a suit-that's simply how it works.

And having a different religion is like that, is it?

You ever notice that the people who argue that discrimination SHOULD be allowed almost always belong to the group that is doing the discrimination, not the group being discriminated against?

Oh, so you don't have an argument, you'll just fall back on "Well, you're a discriminator!" instead. Very well.

[Smernosh Smercova]

I believe all religious people should be allowed to display their affections in public, save for Christians. Christianity is an outdated and old religion that promotes reactionary values such as chastity, and glorifies heterosexuality.